This discussion of whether a particular person from history should be cast heroically or deeply flawed brings to mind something a faculty colleague told me many years ago which I've seen confirmed by various screenwriters and historian-consultants to movies: the REAL people of REAL history were usually heroes only in comparison to their contexts and time in history....and if historians kept movie scripts totally faithful to the facts, general audiences would be horrified and leave the movie theatre thinking that ALL of the characters were terrible villains. So, to make the characters "relatable" and eligible for hero status by audiences in our time, they have to be "sanitized" and made to seem much more heroic than they actually were.
I remember seeing that same point made about a movie concerning one of the Crusades from just a few years ago. Despite what general audiences think they know about the Crusades, virtually all of the actual historical characters on BOTH sides of the conflicts, were brutal, cruel, heartless, and despicable by modern day standards. So screenwriters usually choose events where the intended protagonist seems like a hero and then "cleans them up" even more---even if they have to fudge considerably to spin them into the story's "good guy."
I used to hate any movie or TV program that altered anything but minor historical facts. I still have my frustrations with any film depiction which fudges the facts---but having discussed it with colleagues who've been involved in film projects as advisors, I've come to see their point. We can't expect modern day audiences to take a few relevant history and civilization courses before watching a movie so that they can more accurately assess the virtues and flaws of the various characters (i.e., those based on historical persons.)
Therefore, consider this: few audiences complain when a movie depicts Julius Caesar speaking English, even though everybody knows that the language wouldn't exist until many centuries many later. Most critics don't even complain all that much if Caesar has a British accent while Brutus has a more neutral American accent. In fact, a director may chooses a very proper, educated-sounding Oxford accent for the great orator Cato while the lowly centurions speak in a very colloquial Cockney accent, critics may even praise the film for helping the audience remain continually mindful of the various social classes and tiers of Roman society. So liberties are taken in order to help the audience understand the underlying social dynamics.
To my historian colleagues, the ethics, character flaws, and relative virtues of the characters must be similarly conceptualized to our time so that the audience can better understand who was heroic and who was fiendish in the historical context of their own society. So rather than remind the audience that the ancient protagonist could be almost as heartless and vicious as the antagonists in similar contexts, even more liberties are often taken to "translate" heroes and villains into our concepts of heroism and fiendishness.
So whatever one's position on historical accuracy, hearing a film's historical advisor perspective on why he/she took liberties has given me a greater respect--and even a greater tolerance--for the difficulties and compromises a screen-writer faces.
reply
share